371–380 of 408 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By what means did you make sure your LLM was not trained with data from the original source code?
Because it’s written in an entirely different language, which makes this whole point moot
I am pretty sure this article is predicated on a misunderstanding of what a "clean room" implementation means. It does not mean "as long as you never read the original code, whatever you write is yours". If you had a hermetically sealed code base that just happened to coincide line for line with the codebase for GCC, it would still be a copy. Traditionally, a human-driven clean room implementation would have a vanish…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lawyer here. Its not. This article is highly confused. The case was about whether an AI could be considered an author for copyright purposes. Mainly as a way of arguing for robot rights, not copyright. The person listed the AI as the sole author: On the application, Dr. Thaler listed the Creativity Machine as the work’s sole author and himself as just the work’s owner. This is not the first time someone tried to say…
"the person who created, operated, or used artificial intelligence" so which one is it? because there the person(s) who created the ai is almost always different that the person who used it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it’s written in an entirely different language, which makes this whole point moot
Surely if I took a program written in Python and translated it line for line into JavaScript, that wouldn't allow me to treat it as original work. I don't see how this solves the problem, except very incrementally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a real problem. I threw it at an old MUD game just to see how hard it is [0] then used differential testing and LLMs to rewrite it [1]. Just seems to be time and money. [0] https://reorchestrate.com/posts/your-binary-is-no-longer-saf... [1] https://reorchestrate.com/posts/your-binary-is-no-longer-saf...
Wow, as a former MajorMUD addict (~30 years ago) that's extremely interesting to see. Especially since MajorMUD is rarely discussed on HN, even in MUD or BBS-related threads. Did you find it worked reasonably well on any portion of the codebase you could throw at it? For example, if I recall correctly, all of MajorMUD's data file interactions used the embedded Btrieve library which was popular at the time. For that t…
I actually sidestepped the annoying btrieve problem by exporting the data using a go binary [0] and I write it to a sqlite instance with raw byte arrays (blobs). btreive is weird because it has a dll but also a a service to interact with the files.
P.s. I have spent a lot of hours on this mainly to learn actual LLM capabilities that have improved a huge amount in the last year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lack thereof (of human use). Prompts are not copyrightable thus the output also - not. Besides retelling a story is fair use, right? Otherwise we should ban all generative AI and prepare for Dune/Foundation future. But we not there, and we perhaps never going to be. So the LLM training first needs to be settled, then we talk whether retelling a whole software package infringes anyone's right. And even if it does,…
> Prompts are not copyrightable Surely that varies on a case by case basis? With agentic coding the instructions fed in are often incredibly detailed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes if you are solving the exact problem that the original code solved and that original code was labeled as solving that exact problem then that’s very good reason for the LLM to produce that code. Researchers have shown that an LLM was able to reproduce the verbatim text of the first 4 Harry Potter books with 96% accuracy.
> that an LLM was able to reproduce the verbatim text of the first 4 Harry Potter books with 96% accuracy. Kinda weird argument, in their research ( https://forum.gnoppix.org/t/researchers-extract-up-to-96-of-... ) LLM was explicitly asked to reproduce the book. There are people that can do so without LLMs out there, by this logic everything they write is a copyright infringement an every book they can reproduce. > Y…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"... If AI-generated code cannot be copyrighted (as the courts suggest) ". So, Supreme Court has said that. AI-produced code can not be copyrighted. (Am I right?). Then who's to blame if AI produces code large portions of which already exist coded and copyrigted by humans (or corporations). I assume it goes something like this: A) If you distribute code produced by AI, YOU cannot claim copyright to it. B) If you dist…
IANAL but I was under the impression that Supreme Court ruling was very specific to the AI itself copyrighting its own produced code. Once a human is involved, it gets a lot more complicated and rests on whether the human's contribution was substantial enough to make it copyrightable under their person.
I think SCOTUS might in fact use AI to get a set of possible interpretations of the law, before they come up with their decision. AI might give them good reasons for pros and cons.
Also no one can prove that whether LLMs referenced original code or not, because LLM companies don't disclose what data they used. I'm pretty sure that well-known open source projects such as chardet has been included in the Claude dataset, but Anthropic won't say anything about this.